Time to Leave?

[lightworks]

<p>Ah, the voice of calm and reason - I, no doubt, should stand corrected. except my own reason and painful experience tells me that, perhaps, another line of thought must indeed be considered....<br /> If a work is exploited as an orphan work, and therefore without the knowledge, permission of and payment to its rights owner (because its rights owner cannot be found and contacted), or that work is exploited under ECL again without the knowledge, permission of and payment to its rights owner (because its rights owner is not a member of the ECL licensing body and has not opted out), it is absolutely true to claim that the ERR Act would permit digital images to be used without permission and compensation for the rights holder. If it did not, it would not permit the licensing of orphan works, or ECL, both of which are designed and intended to legalise the exploitation of works without their owners' knowledge, permission, and payment to them.<br /> Perhaps that is why David Bailey earnestly encouraged the Government to drop this amendment altogether and continue to pursue the Copyright Hub scheme, which is seeking to properly recognize and endorse the moral argument of photographers regarding copyright, but what do the likes of those who have raised such issues and worries really know... it's not like we work in this field or anything like that, is it?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The licensing fee would be paid to the regulatory authority and the author would be able to recover it. Even true orphaned works are not free under this system.</p>

<p>Orphaned works are a problem that needs to be cleared up. Currently there are millions of books that are in copyright but the owners can't be located. (At the time Google first got sued over Google Books they had scanned 12 million books and 11 million were orphans.) This leads to a bunch of problems. For example, academics who need to copy and excerpt them can't without risk of a lawsuit by an owner (the author's grandson or somebody like that) popping up out of the woodwork. Which doesn't happen often, but publishers are cautious. Orphaned works laws give an alternate path to getting permission.</p>

<p>The actual negative impact that this will have on a photographer whose work is findable in searches is negligible and certainly outweighed by the positives of making older material available. Just make sure your work is traceable to you.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I think the most fascinating thing about reading this is that somehow, you get the idea that pre-internet, no one ever shared photos among friends or peers and that there was no reason to even make photographs. I mean, honestly, what did you all do before the beloved internet? The fascinating part is that it seems many feel that if they were to pull all their work off of the web, that it would never get seen.</p>

<p>I have pulled most of my work off the web, I now use a totally underground method of showing work to clients who insist on digital and self promote using fresh and unorthodox methods. And since I have basically gone back to a working method of 90% film and darkroom prints, once a week I go to one of several local places and set out 4x5 black and white prints for people to look at while I do mundane tasks like invoices on my laptop. There is a sign that says, "I share my photos here, come take a look". I can not tell you how effective this is, the tactility of it and just how many people *love* it, seeing real photographs in real life. I just do it as a fun jab at the internet mentality of "sharing" photos but it has resulted in getting work, print sales and I see no reason to stop it.</p>

<p>The other thing I have done is created an "Analog-Blog" in a local gallery. It is sandwiched between two pieces of plexiglass and functions like a regular blog. What it contains however is again, something that will never be on the web and uses no digital technology whatsoever. Once a week, I make a 8x10 black and white print from a 35mm film image shot on my Leica and then create a short caption using those fridge magnets letters on a thin piece of aluminum below the print. I am probably going to get a typewriter and do the caption but for now the letters work. It's a blog…but it is all analog, people love it…I love it…</p>

<p>What the internet does best is convince people that the only way is the internet. The less I use it and the more I use more creative methods of showing my work, the better my life has become, it just works and it is going to get better. I do have a question though, I have put all but one of my images on here in a non-public folder and yet, when I see a photo below this thread that references my images, I am wondering if people can still see it regardless? If so, then as much as I don't want to because of some key info on them, I will have to simply delete all but one photo from this site. Let me know if you can see more than just the comet shot in my profile...</p>

<p>Now if you will excuse me, I have shoots to schedule, three stock sales to complete and print orders to attend to, amazing how that works when the "Internet" tells the rest of you that photography is worthless, no one gets paid and that if you don't post your photos on places like this, then your work will never be seen….</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>I'd probably move all my photo's to my own domain name and quit posting in forums or on sites. Use links if necessary to share in various threads. Make sure all metadata is available on the site and which can be used against anyone if they ever thought about stripping it to use the photo. Watermarks would probably not be necessary. Or you can hide your initials somewhere in the photo.<br>

I believe the orphaned works deal was about old photos of which the original photographer could not be located because they were dead or unknown, such as in the art industry regarding paintings by unknown artists. Andy's post above covers it pretty well.</p>